Poster:
|
Archfilm |
Date:
|
Jul 26, 2011 4:21pm |
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
At War with the Army |
"At War with the Army" is supposedly in the public domain, yet I found a renewal registration online.
Type of Work: Motion Picture
Registration Number / Date: RE0000043009 / 1979-12-07
Renewal registration for: LP0000000679 / 1951-01-23 (in notice: 1950)
Title: At war with the army. By York Pictures Corporation & Screen Association, Inc.
Copyright Claimant: Paramount Pictures Corporation & United Artists Corporation (PWH)
Variant title: At war with the army
Names: York Pictures Corporation
Screen Association, Inc.
Paramount Pictures Corporation
United Artists Corporation
If this film is still under copyright protection, why is it on the Archive?
This post was modified by Archfilm on 2011-07-26 23:21:41
Poster:
|
billbarstad |
Date:
|
Jul 26, 2011 4:02pm |
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: At War with the Army |
Check it for a valid copyright notice: a date, roman or Arabic numerals; the word "copyright" and/or the symbol ©; and a production company name.
Poster:
|
Archfilm |
Date:
|
Jul 26, 2011 4:10pm |
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: At War with the Army |
I noticed that the original copyright has a valid notice. I was talking about the copyright info I posted. I noticed that the original copyright was registered in 1951 and was renewed in 1979. On screen, the film has a 1950 copyright. Was the film supposed to have been renewed in 1978 (28 years to the film's original copyright date, per compliance to pre-78 copyright law) and the copyright holders were too late to re-register?
Poster:
|
Moongleam |
Date:
|
Jul 26, 2011 7:29pm |
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: At War with the Army |
Per Video-Cellar:
The renewal window was far more complicated before the 1976 copyright
act came into force. For a film to be timely renewed, it had to be
renewed between the 27th and 28th anniversary of the calendar day of
registration based on the year in notice not the year of registration.
So it seems that the renewal was late.
This post was modified by Moongleam on 2011-07-27 02:29:57
Poster:
|
billbarstad |
Date:
|
Jul 26, 2011 7:12pm |
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: At War with the Army |
Also per Video-Cellar:
1950 (
this is the transitional year for the effects of the 1976 act to come in):
Correct Notice
Timely registration (within 3 months of publication)
OR Late Term Registration (at any time during the 28 year term)
Timely renewal (within the 27th-28th anniversary year window* or the 28th calendar year window*)
copyright could be forfeited if published without correct notice or not timely renewed.
*based on the year-in-notice.
It was registered late, but still correctly. The renewal does look late, though.
Poster:
|
Moongleam |
Date:
|
Jul 26, 2011 7:29pm |
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: At War with the Army |
So it seems that the renewal was late.
Poster:
|
billbarstad |
Date:
|
Jul 26, 2011 4:33pm |
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: At War with the Army |
The copyright registration you posted isn't the problem. It's OK. The issue I'm talking about is the notice in the film.
If the notice is valid, then the movie shouldn't be here.
Poster:
|
Archfilm |
Date:
|
Jul 26, 2011 5:38pm |
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: At War with the Army |
There is a valid copyright notice in the opening credits. York Pictures Corporation and Screen Associates, Inc. are listed as the copyright holders. Here's the link:
http://www.archive.org/details/AtWarWithTheArmy
But the copyright was renewed, so it's not in the public domain and should be removed from the website.
This post was modified by Archfilm on 2011-07-27 00:38:09
Poster:
|
Video-Cellar |
Date:
|
Jul 27, 2011 12:42am |
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: At War with the Army |
The renewal was 1 year late. The copyright term begins at the date in notice, creating a transitional window of 24 Jan 1977-31 Dec 1978 for this film. The renewal occured after the films valid renewal window had expired. It was not uncommon for such renewals to go through and remain in the database, however, they hold no legal validity.
Some such renewals that are still present in the USCO database include:
Kangaroo; motion picture photoplay.
Type of Work: Motion Picture
Registration Number / Date: RE0000066355 / 1980-05-06
Renewal registration for: LP0000001819 / 1952-05-16 (in notice: 1951)
Title: Kangaroo; motion picture photoplay.
Copyright Claimant: Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation (PWH)
Basis of Claim: New Matter: "motion picture photoplay."
Copyright Note: C.O. correspondence.
Road to Bali. By Bing Crosby Enterprises, Inc. & Hope Enterprises, Inc.
Type of Work: Motion Picture
Registration Number / Date: RE0000105899 / 1981-09-01
Renewal registration for: LP0000002200 / 1953-01-01 (in notice: 1952)
Title: Road to Bali. By Bing Crosby Enterprises, Inc. & Hope Enterprises, Inc.
Copyright Claimant: Bob Hope (PWH)
Copyright Note: C.O. correspondence.
Others similar registrations were canceled:
DOA;a feature photoplay. By Cardinal Pictures, Inc.
Type of Work: Cancelled Registration
Cancelled Registration Number: RE0000005723
Registration canceled--in notice 1949, too late for renewal registration.
Title: DOA;a feature photoplay. By Cardinal Pictures, Inc.
No one knows why some get cancelled and some stay on the system. The key to remember is that the renewal must correspond to the date in notice (regardless of the publication date) for the renewal to be valid.
This post was modified by Video-Cellar on 2011-07-27 07:42:22
Poster:
|
Moongleam |
Date:
|
Jul 27, 2011 10:28am |
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: At War with the Army |
What if the date in notice is later than the publication date? For example, if a film was released in 1950 but the date in notice was 1952, could the owner wait until 1980 to renew?
Poster:
|
Video-Cellar |
Date:
|
Jul 27, 2011 11:58pm |
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: At War with the Army |
No. If the date in notice is more than 1 year post-dated from publication the notice is invalid.
So a 1958 publication could carry a 1959 notice and have a legally registered copyright:
HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL. Allied Artists
Pictures Corp. 75 min., sd., b&w, 35mm.
Allied Artists Pictures Corp.; 29Dec58
(in notice: 1959); LP12531.
but the renewal would need to be lodged in 1987 not 1986. If the notice on a 1958 publication read 1960 then there is effectively no copyright notice.
Poster:
|
Moongleam |
Date:
|
Jul 28, 2011 6:46am |
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: At War with the Army |
Good information. Thanks.